 I guess my question is on the ICOs, we're about to launch an ICO in August, and my question is do you see ICOs as being a disruptor and democratic venture capital, or do you see it as being a bubble fueling greed? Do I have to choose? I mean, obviously it's both. Obviously it's both. There is a certain contingent that is looking at this ICO thing and revealing some of their very, very statist and traditional ideas. Part of the reason we have things like the SEC and securities laws and the restrictions we have on initial public offerings was because, in the beginning, it was a crazy out-of-control bubble. The slogan at the time was protecting widows and orphans. I kid you not, right? And so the regulation would probably be called the Protecting Widows and Orphans Act of we are now in charge, pay us, right? Regulations are the old way of dealing with things. People see this ICO bubble, and it will have negative consequences. And people will malinvest, and people will get burned, and people will run away with the money invested, and it's a bit wild out there. And yet it's created an opportunity to do something that's never been done before, which is bridge the gap between early-stage organic financing and stock market public offerings, which is a pretty big gap. And in that gap, it's now created the opportunity for companies to fundraise from a completely global audience at enormous velocity. That will create a very new environment for fundraising. It will create some spectacular successes and some spectacular failures. And so what's the answer to that? Do we go, great, let's regulate this. Let's put rules in place. Let's create oversight and apply the securities laws. That's the old way of doing things. We have programmable money. What can we do with programmable money that's different, that's new, that's decentralized, that allows us to reimagine funding and fundraising with protections driven by crowdsourcing? If the crowd is funding, the crowd should be vetting. We can do new things. We can create escrow structures. We can create protections within the programmable money infrastructure. So this is an opportunity. Along come ICOs, they disrupt the shit out of the regulatory environment. Here's the other thing you should pay attention to. Banking is not the primary incumbent that is being disrupted by this stuff. Regulators are the primary incumbent that is being disrupted by this stuff. This is not just saying we don't need banking anymore. Primary is saying we don't need institutional oversight anymore. We don't need central banking. A lot of people don't like that idea. Sounds wild. Yes, it is. If you don't invent some new ways of doing things better. I think we can. Now we're going to see a lot of funding, and part of that is going to create these big bubbles that are going to burst, and re-inflate, and burst, and re-inflate, and every time they're going to be bigger and bigger. In that people are going to be burned, lessons are going to be learned, and people are going to build solutions because it will become profitable to build good solutions that are decentralized and give us consumer protection. Fascinating stuff. I can't wait to see it. In the meantime, I'm not going to be investing in most of these. Like 99.999% of these ICOs. Why? Because I don't invest in a minimally viable white paper. The new standard for startups. Peter Todd actually went one further and said, We don't even need that. Here's a minimally viable tweet for an ICO. This is my Bitcoin address. Fund me to get nothing in return. Guaranteed. People sent him money. Awesome. We're redefining entrepreneurial capitalism. We're redefining corporations. We're redefining securities. We're redefining fundraising. We're redefining stock markets. We're redefining everything financial and the regulatory system around it. Hang on. It's going to be interesting. Thank you all so much for coming.